Building a Regional Reputation: Preparing for Promotion to Associate Professor

in the Medical Center Line

November 16, 2011

Presenters

• Dr. Maurice Druzin, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs; Chair, Assistant Professors Review Committee, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology

• Dr. Cheryl Gore-Felton, Co-Chair, Department of Psychiatry Appointments and Promotions Committee; Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

• Dr. Deirdre Lyell, Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Agenda

• Dr. Druzin – the School – Introduction to the reappointment and promotion process – Appointments and timelines – Criteria, candidate’s role, proportionality of contributions – Defining regional recognition

• Dr. Gore-Felton – the Department – Departmental process and considerations

• Dr. Lyell – the Candidate – Going through the promotion process – Regional recognition

Handouts

• Criteria and Application of Criteria in the MCL • CV Guidelines • CV Guidelines: Annotation Regarding Collaborative Research • Candidate’s Statement Guidelines • Sample Reappointment/Promotion Long Form • Sample Clinical Excellence Form • 2011-12 Academic Affairs Workshops Available on OAA website:

med.stanford.edu/academicaffairs/assistant-professors and med.stanford.edu/academicaffairs/faculty/workshops.html

Medical Center Line –

Duration of Appointments Rank Initial Appointment Reappointment or

Promotion

Assistant Professor Generally 4 years Renewable generally for 6 years for a maximum of 10 years in rank

Associate Professor Generally 5 years Renewable for an unlimited number of up to 5 year terms

Professor Generally 5 years Continuing term (unless for special circumstances for which an appointment for a term of years is appropriate)

Medical Center Line

Criteria • Excellence in the overall mix of contributions

– Clinical care – Teaching – Scholarly activity

• Based on FTE distribution, excellence in area of greatest time commitment

• Excellence in clinical care is always required • Protected time for scholarship (normally at least

20% FTE)

Reappointment

Criteria Reappointment to Assistant Professor (MCL) (6 years) Assistant Professors in the MCL are assessed for reappointment on

the basis of their performance and achievements in the area of clinical care, clinical teaching and scholarly activity that advances clinical medicine. They may be reappointed based on evidence of progress, high-level performance, and continuing programmatic need. Written scholarship that advances the field will nearly always be required for reappointment to the rank of Assistant Professor. There should be evidence that the candidate will continue to successfully fill the programmatic need for which the reappointment is made and to make meritorious contributions to his/her discipline and to the School. There should be evidence that candidates have the promise to attain regional recognition for excellence in the overall mix of contributions.

Promotion Criteria

Promotion to Associate Professor (MCL) (5 years) Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor in the MCL will be

considered for those who have demonstrated excellence in the overall mix of clinical care, clinical teaching, scholarly activity that advances clinical medicine, and institutional service (if applicable) during their terms of appointment as Assistant Professors at Stanford. Written scholarship that advances the field will almost always be required for the rank of Associate Professor. There should be evidence that candidates have attained regional recognition as superior clinicians, clinical teachers or scholars.

Reappointment or Promotion

Process

• Initiated by Department • Departmental evaluation committee • Review by Office of Academic Affairs • School of Medicine Committee:

– Assistant Professors Review Committee: appoint/reappoint as Assistant Professor

– Appointments and Promotions Committee: promote to Associate Professor

• Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs • Dean of the School of Medicine (final review for fixed term reappointments) For other actions: • Provost of the University For Professor with continuing term, also: • Advisory Board For all Professoriate actions: • President of the University

Reappointment/Promotion

Timeline Time period before current appt ends

Action

13 months before Department consults with OAA, decides to review for reappointment or promotion.

12 months before Faculty member receives email notification of the start of the process from Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs. Also receives email from dept, stating what materials will be needed and when. Faculty member provides materials as requested in timely fashion.

12 – 5 months before Department assembles evidence, conducts review.

4 months before Dept submits file to OAA for School level review. Assist Prof appts/reappts – Assistant Professors Review Cmte Promo to Assoc Prof and above – A&P Cmte

3 months before File reviewed by the Dean; if fixed-term reappt, finished; otherwise goes to Provost for final review.

Your Role • Curriculum Vitae – up to date; peer-reviewed articles (original or review)

separate; no funding amounts; note role in collaborative research • Candidate’s Statement – 3-5 pages on clinical, teaching, and scholarly work

and future plans • Trainees – comprehensive list of trainees and relationship to you

(current/former) • Referees – 3-5 suggestions for internal or external faculty who can review

your work • Teaching evaluations • For promotion, five “favorite” articles Provide to department on time!

“Regional Recognition” –

What’s my Region?

• Usually recognition for clinical work • Evidence – referrals, presentations, service to

regional organizations, external referee letters • “Region” depends on your specialty, number of

patients and number of doctors • Could range from “Greater Bay Area” to

“Western United States” • Discuss with Department Chair or Division

Chief

Assistant Professors Review Committee

• Members: – Maurice Druzin, Chair (Obstetrics and Gynecology) – Loretta Chou (Orthopaedic Surgery) – Eric Knudsen (Neurobiology) – Chandra Ramamoorthy (Anesthesia) – Eric Sibley (Pediatrics) – David Spain (Surgery) – Lucy Tompkins (Medicine)

Appointments &

Promotions Committee • Members:

– Yvonne Maldonado, Chair (Pediatrics)

– K. Christopher Garcia (Molecular & Cellular Physiology)

– Rona Giffard (Anesthesia) – Youn Kim (Dermatology) – Ann Leung(Radiology) – Timothy Meyer (Medicine)

– Robert Norris (Surgery) – Natalie Rasgon

(Psychiatry) – Renee Reijo Pera

(Ob/Gyn) – Thomas Robinson

(Pediatrics) – Matthew Scott

(Developmental Biology)

Evaluating a Regional Reputation: A Departmental Perspective

Cheryl Gore-Felton, Ph.D.

Professor & Co-Chair, Appointment and Promotions Committee, Department of

Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

What We Look At • THE LONG FORM

• Curriculum Vitae – Number of publications since appointment; First/senior authorships – Number of invited talks/presentations – Funding (source, role) – Service (Department, School of Medicine, University)/Awards

– CANDIDATE’S ROLE • Scholarly Review

– Prepared by someone other than the candidate – A general overview of the candidate’s accomplishments and impact – Review of 2-4, peer-reviewed manuscripts (Psychiatry does 3) that summarizes

the specific work and the contributions to the particular field

• Clinical Activities • Teaching and Advising • Candidate’s Statement

What We Look At

• THE LONG FORM CONTINUED

• External/Internal Referee Letters – Look for evidence that clinical, scholarly, teaching/advising

activities are meritorious

• Student/Trainee Letters – Look for evidence of meritorious teaching/advising – Look at academic trajectory of trainees

AP-P DISCUSSION

• SYNTHESIZING THE DATA IN THE LONG FORM • DO THE CLINICAL, SCHOLARLY, AND TEACHING

ACTIVITIES MAP ONTO THE FTE?

• IS THERE EVIDENCE OF EXCELLENCE IN THE OVERALL MIX?

– WERE THE REFEREE LETTERS STRONG? – WERE THE TEACHING EVALUATIONS STRONG? – WERE THE CLINICAL EVALUATIONS STRONG? – WAS THE SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY STRONG? – WAS THERE EVIDENCE OF REGIONAL/NATIONAL REPUTATION?

• IS THE CANDIDATE CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROGRAMMATIC NEEDS OF THE DEPARTMENT?

Reputation Building

Blocks • KEYS TO ASSESSING A REGIONAL/NATIONAL

REPUTATION • REFEREE LETTERS, PARTICULARLY EXTERNAL LETTERS • AWARDS • COMMUNITY SERVICE • REFERRALS • LEADERSHIP/SERVICE IN REGIONAL/NATIONAL

ORGANIZATIONS • INVITED TALKS/KEYNOTE ADDRESSES • EXTERNAL FUNDING • HIGH IMPACT ARTICLES • SCIENTIFIC REVIEWER SERVICE (e.g., NIH, CDC)

AFTER THE DISCUSSION

• SUMMARY/EVALUATION • A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED

IN THE LONG FORM ALONG WITH THE COMMITTEE INTERPRETATION/IMPRESSION OF THE EVIDENCE IS WRITTEN.

• THE SUMMARY CONCLUDES WITH A DEFINITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CHAIR FOR A PARTICULAR ACTION… IN YOUR CASE, PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR!

Building a Regional Reputation: Workshop on Promotion to Associate

Professor in the Medical Center Line

November 16, 2011

Notes (Suggestions and comments from the presenters which were not

captured on the slides)

Coming into the Stanford faculty, you start with an “A”. We are trying to set you up for success

and moving up through the ranks.

Actions (reappointments and promotions) start at the department or division level and must be

vetted through the department before they reach the school review.

Ten years in rank is the maximum for Assistant Professors in the MCL – you can be considered

for promotion before that time if you and the department (and the Senior Associate Dean for

Academic Affairs) agree that you are ready.

One difference between the University Tenure Line and the Medical Center Line – in the UTL,

tenure is conferred at the Associate Professor level. In the MCL, continuing term is conferred at

the Professor level.

Scholarly activity in the MCL must be of high quality and must advance the field.

The 20% protected time for scholarship that the department must provide you is flexible – it

may be in the form of two half-days per week, or no time one month and 40% time the next

month.

Regional recognition can be shown through: clinical referrals, teaching (e.g. residency program

director, invitations to teach at national programs), scholarship that advances the field and

changes clinical practice (e.g. inventing a new catheter), or service on regional and national

committees.

Talk to your chair about where you stand. You need to know what success looks like in your

department and how you are doing against that standard, what you need to improve.

Use your candidate’s statement to tell the story of your work – put your papers, funding,

research, and clinical work into a broader context. This is your opportunity to connect the dots.

External referees generally carry more weight than internal referees.

Talk to your chair about your department’s programmatic needs and how you fit into them, so

that you can make the case convincingly.

Meet with your mentor on a regular basis.

At all times, keep your CV up to date. Monthly is good. Did you give a lecture or review for a

journal? Make sure you get credit for everything you have done. Spend time on your

candidate’s statement as well.

Always know when you agree to do something (write a book chapter, serve on a committee,

e.g.) whether it is going to help you get where you want to go.

Take the extra steps in clinical care – they will be noticed and will help to demonstrate

excellence, which is required.

Research matters – build in one area where you can be recognized for your achievements

(though it’s fine to collaborate in different areas of course). Go to national meetings and find

out who focuses in your area of research? Meet them so they have heard of you, and may write

referee letters later. Joining a national committee may help with this.

Speak with your department leadership – are your expectations reasonable? Are you meeting

their expectations?

Work/life balance is important too. Don’t lose sight of that even during the reappointment and

promotion periods. For any talks you give, collect the evaluations and keep them. They can help

demonstrate your regional recognition, teaching ability, etc.

Go to the big national meetings in your specialty and network.

Send a copy of your latest paper to people in your field – it’s a good way to gain recognition.

Q&A Q: The “five favorite articles” that are needed for the promotion long form – should those all have been

published after reappointment, or can they be from any time in your career?

A: They should mostly come from your time at Stanford. If you have a particularly outstanding

publication from before (in the journal Nature, for example), feel free to include it, but the focus is on

what you have done at Stanford and particularly what you have done recently. (Check with Craig on

this; my impression is that it is usually optimal to include some recent publications)

Q: With regards to suggesting referees – I heard that you couldn’t include any mentors or collaborators

– is that right?

A: No. For promotion, most of the referees should be what we call “independent” (not current or

former mentors, collaborators, teachers, close colleagues). However, input from mentors and

collaborators is always included and welcomed. For reappointment, most of the letters can be from

mentors or collaborators.

Q: When the appointment terms changed for Assistant Professors in the MCL from a 7 year limit to a 10

year limit, did that “raise the bar” for promotion, in terms of what you had to produce?

A: No. The “bar” is the same, and still focuses on regional recognition. Also, you can still be considered

for promotion at 7 years or any time if you and your department agree that you are ready.

Q: At what level are problems in reappointment or promotion usually identified – at the department or

the school, say – problems like needing more regional recognition?

A: These shouldn’t turn up in the reappointment or promotion process – hopefully they will have been

identified long before that, in annual counseling from your chair or chief. At annual counseling you

should be told how you’re doing and how your trajectory looks towards your next “action”

(reappointment or promotion). Also, at the reappointment action, the School reviewers do consider the

scholarly trajectory – are you on the right track for a possible future promotion?

Q: Is there a high rate of success for reappointments and promotions?

A: Yes, very high. The intent is that everyone should be able to be successful, and the rate of successful

actions is extremely high.

Q: Can you get regional recognition as part of a large multi-center clinical trial?

A: Yes, but you will need to clarify what your role in the trial was, either in your CV (on any publications

that resulted) or in your candidate’s statement.

Q: I have an NIH biosketch for my CV. What should my CV look like?

A: In the handouts you will find a sample CV, a set of guidelines for putting your CV together, and a

discussion about annotating your middle-authored publications to clarify your role in collaborative

research. These are also available on the OAA website here. Most important – separate your peer-

reviewed publications from non-peer-reviewed, and number them.

Q: In terms of “invited presentations” or “invited talks”, if I submit a proposal for a talk to a workshop

and I’m accepted, does that count?

A: Yes.